Does The Lord Put Stumbling Blocks In Our Path?

[Teancum]

You really should just stop being evil.

 

 

I think people who claim God is speaking to them and expecting others to simply accept that is evil as well.

[Teancum]

Sorry Teancum,

 

This comment right here is either ignorant at best, or down right condescending at worst.

 

I have asked and dealt with the tough questions. I am very aware of the issues of Church History and the Modern Church (with regards to the latter, perhaps moreso than all but a select few on the board). I don't think you understand faith. I wish I was the right person to teach. Sadly, I am not.

 

 

I understand faith quite well thank you and have spent many years studying the principle.  I just no longer accept it like you do.  Maybe you don't understand evidence, reason and rational thinking.  Is that not really not the other side of the coin of what you just said to me?

[Teancum]

I feel the same way.  I am aware of all the "tough questions" that seem to cause peoples faith crises and have more than made my peace with them.  From Joseph's polygamy & polyandry to the Church's current issues with feminists and SSM supporters.  I've been exposed to them all.

Even if I hadn't this board throws EVERY argument against the Church right down our throats and it doesn't waver the faith at all.  In fact it has taught me not how to ignore these "issues" but how to address them and search out God's actual truth, not man's.  I also wish I could bring others to do that too.

 

So you have come to a different conclusion than I have. And guess what? I respect that.  Do you respect me and my conclusions that differ from yours? Or do you pity me and feel sorry for a lost sheep? 

[The Nehor]

I think people who claim God is speaking to them and expecting others to simply accept that is evil as well.

Yep, Jesus and those prophets were pure evil for saying God spoke. Of course they wanted their listeners to come and do likewise. So do I.

[Duncan]

I see posters here constantly refer to how important faith is.  The Lectures on Faith promote it highly.  Whenever I ask for evidence I am told I need to have more faith. IT is all a test just have faith.....

 

I think it was philospher John Hick who came up with the idea of "epistemic distance", the idea that God won't give us everything but he won't let the critics have a field day either

[JLHPROF]

So you have come to a different conclusion than I have. And guess what? I respect that.  Do you respect me and my conclusions that differ from yours? Or do you pity me and feel sorry for a lost sheep? 

 

I respect your right to believe as you see fit.

But I do pity you for coming to the wrong conclusion.  How could you expect me to do otherwise?  Do you not pity those who are "deceived" as you see it?

But my testimony is such that I am positive when all is revealed my beliefs will be right, because I think they are consistent with the same gospel that has been taught in all ages of the world.  You of course disagree, and you have that right.

[The Nehor]

So you have come to a different conclusion than I have. And guess what? I respect that.  Do you respect me and my conclusions that differ from yours? Or do you pity me and feel sorry for a lost sheep? 

 

I do both.

[DragonLancer]

On another thread...

 

 

 

 

 

Is there a principle, as claimed by Scott Lloyd, that the Lord would leave just enough uncertainty (such as troubling historical information, teachings that seem out of step with human reason and lack of convincing scientific evidence) regarding whether the claims of the Church are true or false to make it necessary for sincere and humble seekers to exercise faith?

 

Or..

 

Is the uncertainty caused by the adversary?

 

The Lord leaves us with uncertainty by not revealing or bringing forth to the sight of men all that could be revealed or brought forth, and so we are left with a complexity where neither side of an issue can be settled with certainty, and that causes uncertainty.  Critics oversimplify any issue like saying that there is "no" archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, or that it is "cut and dried" that the Book of Abraham papryus does not translate because it is not clearly a simple, mechanical Egyptological/grammatical version of the Book of Abraham.  Anything like these types of statements is a plain lie, because the complexity of the issue does not allow for the oversimplification, when a case can be made for plausibility in the direction of a defense in favor of the position that there IS evidence for the Book of Mormon and that the papyrus DOES translate.  It's just not a "simple" thing to make the case.  And because of that, the critics take advantage of the complexity and bamboozle the weak and impatient among the members of the Church who want simple and quick answers to complexities, when the complexities do not allow for that.  Futhermore, the critics think that they can label any attempt to deal with complexity as "mental gymnastics" when the evidence requires a complex and thorough treatment to tease out the actual facts about the evidence that is not apparent on a surface level.

[Mystery Meat]

The Lord leaves us with uncertainty by not revealing or bringing forth to the sight of men all that could be revealed or brought forth, and so we are left with a complexity where neither side of an issue can be settled with certainty, and that causes uncertainty.  Critics oversimplify any issue like saying that there is "no" archaeological evidence for the Book of Mormon, or that it is "cut and dried" that the Book of Abraham papryus does not translate because it is not clearly a simple, mechanical Egyptological/grammatical version of the Book of Abraham.  Anything like these types of statements is a plain lie, because the complexity of the issue does not allow for the oversimplification, when a case can be made for plausibility in the direction of a defense in favor of the position that there IS evidence for the Book of Mormon and that the papyrus DOES translate.  It's just not a "simple" thing to make the case.  And because of that, the critics take advantage of the complexity and bamboozle the weak and impatient among the members of the Church who want simple and quick answers to complexities, when the complexities do not allow for that.  Futhermore, the critics think that they can label any attempt to deal with complexity as "mental gymnastics" when the evidence requires a complex and thorough treatment to tease out the actual facts about the evidence that is not apparent on a surface level.

 

Masterfully said.

[CV75]

Regarding the idea that prophet will never lead us astray, I think it works like this:

 

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10), and  the word of God comes to us according to the revelation of the truth and according to the spirit of prophecy, according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Alma 6:8 ).

 

The prophet and those he serves hear the same voice and are on the same page (D&C 88:3, 66, 40).

 

We cannot follow the prophet in the right path without faith, the Holy Spirit or the testimony of Jesus (spirit of prophecy), nor can he lead along the right path without them. Only when they are aligned can he lead and we follow, and on the right path.

 

So the prophet will never lead us astray. If one or the other are mistaken in faith, the Holy Spirit or the testimony of Jesus (spirit of prophecy), there is no real leading or following taking place anyway, and if both are in a “strayed” condition from the get-go, neither can there be no leading astray either, just remaining in the present condition.

 

I think this is why President Heber J. Grant said what he did to President Ezra Taft Benson when he was a ward bishop. “Good faith” may not always be technically correct, but at least it is “good” at some level and will receive the Lord’s support, blessing and guidance toward that which is both good/better/best and therefore correct as well.

Edited April 10, 2015 by CV75

[DragonLancer]

Regarding the idea that prophet will never lead us astray, I think it works like this:

 

The testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy (Revelation 19:10), and  the word of God comes to us according to the revelation of the truth and according to the spirit of prophecy, according to the testimony of Jesus Christ, the Son of God (Alma 6:8 ).

 

The prophet and those he serves hear the same voice and are on the same page (D&C 88:3, 66, 40).

 

We cannot follow the prophet in the right path without faith, the Holy Spirit or the testimony of Jesus (spirit of prophecy), nor can he lead along the right path without them. Only when they are aligned can he lead and we follow, and on the right path.

 

So the prophet will never lead us astray. If one or the other are mistaken in faith, the Holy Spirit or the testimony of Jesus (spirit of prophecy), there is no real leading or following taking place anyway, and if both are in a “strayed” condition from the get-go, neither can there be no leading astray either, just remaining in the present condition.

 

I think this is why President Heber J. Grant said what he did to President Ezra Taft Benson when he was a ward bishop. “Good faith” may not always be technically correct, but at least it is “good” at some level and will receive the Lord’s support, blessing and guidance toward that which is both good/better/best and therefore correct as well.

 

In the sense that "astray" has been used, it really has more to do with going off track in who or what you follow rather than believing any particular doctrine espoused by someone.  The brethren will never lead us astray, not because they will never teach us something false, but because they are on the Lord's errand in keeping us on old ship Zion.  If it were true that they will never teach us anything false, then we would have never have had a problem with Blacks and the Priesthood, Baseball Baptisms or this or that.  We will never go astray by following the prophet because we will never be led off the track that the Lord has designed for us.  The Lord has not designed for us to be taught doctrine in perfection because of the differences of belief in the Church and even among those in hierarchy.  The cause of the ship of Zion is really what this is all about, to have the basics and complete our ordinances for ourselves and for our dead, and be on the designated track that takes us to the celestial kingdom.  The Lord could really care less what "false" things are taught that are inconsequential beliefs.

[Thinking]

The Lord could really care less what "false" things are taught that are inconsequential beliefs.

 

So...not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood for almost 150 years is inconsequential?

[CV75]

The brethren will never lead us astray, not because they will never teach us something false, but because they are on the Lord's errand in keeping us on old ship Zion.

I think the given fallibility of any prophet and his followers is often conflated with leading and being led astray. I think the Lord offered a way out of this confusion precisely by incorporating fallible leaders into His doctrine, clearly pointing out that the key to not being led astray is not to accommodate the spirit of contention (3 Nephi 11:18 onward).

So...not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood for almost 150 years is inconsequential?

Whether it is argued to be inconsequential or not, the priesthood ban is a poor example of being led astray because the Lord only expects us to proceed with the light that we have – how can anyone do any better?

 

The same principle even held true during the Great Apostasy: “All who have died without a knowledge of this gospel, who would have received it if they had been permitted to tarry, shall be heirs of the celestial kingdom of God…” (D&C 137:7). It is only the great and abominable church that leads those likeminded souls astray (2 Nephi 6:12), and the Lord has promised to be merciful to the rest (1 Nephi 13:26-34). So none of the pure in heart are led astray, not matter how they might stumble simply due to a lack of light through no fault of their own.

[The Nehor]

So...not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood for almost 150 years is inconsequential?

It had consequences. Did it lead anyone to hell?

[Thinking]

It had consequences. Did it lead anyone to hell?

 

I'm quite sure that there were some who didn't join the Church because of it. If you believe the LDS Church is true, that's not a good consequence.

[The Nehor]

I'm quite sure that there were some who didn't join the Church because of it. If you believe the LDS Church is true, that's not a good consequence.

In general we are supposed to bring people to Christ. That is true but God has his own timetable and purposes. I wonder if there were purposes for the ban we do not know about and that is why it stayed.on the surface it would appear the answer would be no but it impacted thousands of lives on an individual level. Did it hurt them all or was some eternal good done? I just do not know.

[stemelbow]

In general we are supposed to bring people to Christ. That is true but God has his own timetable and purposes. I wonder if there were purposes for the ban we do not know about and that is why it stayed.on the surface it would appear the answer would be no but it impacted thousands of lives on an individual level. Did it hurt them all or was some eternal good done? I just do not know.

Not knowing should indicate we don't know if it lead people to hell, or lead anyone astray.

[The Nehor]

Not knowing should indicate we don't know if it lead people to hell, or lead anyone astray.

Quite true but God allowed it. I am not sure if it was a test, a blessing, or an affliction. Most likely it was some of each and different things to different people.

[sunstoned]

Quite true but God allowed it. I am not sure if it was a test, a blessing, or an affliction. Most likely it was some of each and different things to different people.

I think it was a mistake.  Nothing good became of the ban.  In fact the opposite is true.  

Edited April 11, 2015 by sunstoned

[Kenngo1969]

 

I think most people would choose #3, but that does not fit with the idea that we can take what the prophet says 'with a grain of salt'.

 

Taking something with a grain of salt means-"regard something as exaggerated; believe only part of something." 

Oh, silly Bluebell!  Quit bein' so literal, whydon'tcha?

[DragonLancer]

So...not allowing blacks to hold the priesthood for almost 150 years is inconsequential?

 

I think you are taking my statement out of context and running with it.  I didn't say that the problem of Blacks and the Priesthood was inconsequential to blacks.  I'm saying in general that most false teachings in the Church in the "mysteries" are mostly innocuous.  For example, the belief among a great majority of the members that the Church's position on the creation is young-earth creationism, when the Church has no position itself at all.  Some of this has to do with the fact that Church members and even leaders are not very well read, and rely on the writings of Joseph Fielding Smith and Bruce R. McConkie rather than understanding all sides of the issue, as well as the pronouncements of the first presidency on the subject.  I myself at one point assumed that in order to be faithful to the truth, I had to be a McConkie-ite.  Elder McConkie did not lead us astray, but used his best light to teach us, as do all those in his same position.  And I am still Mormon even though I used to be a young-earth creationist.  I have not been lead astray, but I did have to get a more sophisticated understanding of nuances over time.

Edited April 11, 2015 by DragonLancer

[Kenngo1969]

I think it was a mistake.  Nothing good became of the ban.  In fact the opposite is true.  

Why is your first sentence equivocal, while your second and third are not?  Why bother equivocating if you're so sure that "[n]othing good [came] of the ban," and that "the opposite is true"?  One could just as easily argue that nothing good comes of anything that the human mind thinks is "bad," or at least thinks is undesirable, or doesn't understand because of a limited perspective.  Anyone who sees a glass as half-empty has to at least be willing to try to see something other than the emptiness in order for his perspective to change, and one way to do that is to accept that God may have a perspective we do not.  

 

For example, from a limited, strictly mortal perspective, many might argue that the Martin and Willie handcart expeditions were nothing but a disaster.  From a strictly mortal perspective, that's certainly true: many people, even those who lived through the trek, suffered horribly, and many others died.  Francis Webster, however, disagrees: 

 

http://www.handcarttreks.com/documents/franciswebster.pdf (see the second page of the linked document, starting at the third full paragraph).

 

A similar principle is applicable to the ban.  Many (including may of African lineage) were (and are) faithful in spite of it. If you want to believe that God is waiting for those people at the Judgment Bar only to tell them, "Suckas!" , that's your business.  As for me, I believe Paul literally meant what he said when he wrote that "All things work together for the good of them that love God" (Romans 8:28).  Not just the "good" stuff, and not just the stuff that I/we understand, but all things.

Edited April 11, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[The Nehor]

I think it was a mistake.  Nothing good became of the ban.  In fact the opposite is true.

Must be awesome being omniscient.

[CCRW]

Given that a good deal of the equation is balanced "on the other side," and that we are independent actors (noncontingent), I'd say that the Lord disciplines whom he loves most, though we all get an adequate test in this life.

I see posters here constantly refer to how important faith is.  The Lectures on Faith promote it highly.  Whenever I ask for evidence I am told I need to have more faith. IT is all a test just have faith.....

[CCRW]

crumb, having trouble with multi quote, sorry, no edit yet -
.

RFS, please elaborate on who exactly God loves most?

 

dang, there it is, I was looking for a big button like the multiquote/quote buttons ... hey and I can vote now!

Edited April 11, 2015 by CCRW